Shortly after a disastrous campaign appearance where Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) stuffed food in his mouth to avoid explaining his claim that Social Security is unconstitutional, Perry’s spokesperson Ray Sullivan claimed that he is completely unaware that his boss believes that our national pension system violates the Constitution:

QUESTION: I just want to be quickly clear on the constitutionality issue. So, I wasn’t covering the governor last year when he made those comments. [...]

SULLIVAN: I’ve never heard him say the thing. And it’s possible that I missed something, but I’ve never heard him say it.

QUESTION: So in no way now does the governor believe that Social Security or any of the entitlements might be unconstitutional? That would be inaccurate?

SULLIVAN: I would say that the governor wants Social Security to work and to be fiscally sustainable.

QUESTION: But as far as the issue of constitutionality?

SULLIVAN: Again, I’ve never heard that come up and I don’t expect that to come up.

Watch it:

For the record, here is the transcript of an interview between Perry and the Daily Beast’s Andrew Romano where Perry unambiguously states that both Social Security and Medicare violate the Constitution:

[ROMANO:]The Constitution says that “the Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes… to provide for the… general Welfare of the United States.” But I noticed that when you quoted this section on page 116, you left “general welfare” out and put an ellipsis in its place. Progressives would say that “general welfare” includes things like Social Security or Medicare—that it gives the government the flexibility to tackle more than just the basic responsibilities laid out explicitly in our founding document. What does “general welfare” mean to you?

[PERRY:] I don’t think our founding fathers when they were putting the term “general welfare” in there were thinking about a federally operated program of pensions nor a federally operated program of health care. What they clearly said was that those were issues that the states need to address. Not the federal government. I stand very clear on that. From my perspective, the states could substantially better operate those programs if that’s what those states decided to do.

So, before he decided to run for president, Perry stood “very clear” on his belief that providing for America’s seniors in their retirement is absolutely, positively beyond the federal government’s authority. Now that Perry wants to be president, however, he’s suddenly so eager to keep this view secret that he’s not even telling his own spokesperson about it.

At a campaign stop at a New Hampshire restaurant today, Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) refused to explain his previous claim that Social Security violates the Constitution. Rather than clarify how this firm stance can be squared with his post-presidential campaign announcement position that “Social Security’s going to be there” for the elderly, Perry stuffed some food in his mouth and then refused to answer because his mouth was full:

Inside the café, Gail Mitchell and a companion grilled him: “You said Social Security was unconstitutional.”

“Social Security’s going to be there for those folks,” Perry answered his inquisitors, making reference to the elderly.

“But you said Social Security is unconstitutional,” Mitchell repeated.

“I don’t think I — I’m sorry, you must have,” Perry said before stopping himself.

Instead of elaborating, Perry stuffed a generous piece of popover in his mouth. (Perry called them “pop ups.”)

“I’ve got a big mouthful,” Perry said and then ordering a glass of water. He later tripped over one of the women standing at his side pressing him on Social Security.

“I’m sorry, sweetheart,” Perry said to her.

Popovers, a hollow egg batter roll similar to a Yorkshire pudding, are delicious. But they are no excuse for Perry’s refusal to answer a basic question. In an interview with the Daily Beast’s Andrew Romano, Perry claimed that “pensions” and “health care” are not issues the federal government can address under the Constitution, so it’s difficult to see how Perry expects Social Security (or Medicare, for that matter) to be there for seniors when he is convinced that they violate our nation’s founding document.

And if Perry ever finishes chewing his popover, he has plenty of other questions to answer about his absurd vision of the Constitution, including:

• Pell Grants & Student Loans: When Perry said, “I don’t think the federal government has a role in your children’s education,” did he mean that all college students must lose their Pell Grants and federal student loans overnight, or can they finish out the current semester?
• Child Labor Laws: Does Perry’s statement that “national labor laws” are unconstitutional mean that he would like to hire child workers himself, or just that coal mine and factory owners should be free to start hiring 9-year-olds if they chose to?
• Ending Democracy: Perry opposes the the 17th Amendment, which empowers Americans to elect their senators. Would Perry call upon Congress to repeal this amendment on his first day in the White House, or would this be a lower priority initiative in a Perry Administration? Are there any other elected officials that Perry thinks should be appointed by political insiders instead of being selected by the democratic process?
• Workplace Discrimination: Perry wrote that federal laws “protecting civil rights” are unconstitutional, but he also makes an exception for laws barring racial discrimination. Does Perry promise to only appoint justices to the Supreme Court who will allow businesses to fire all of their Catholic employees? How about their female employees?
• Jefferson Davis Perry: Perry infamously claimed that “if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people,” Texas may need to secede from the union. What does Perry believe would require Texas to secede? Would Cap and Trade push him into Jefferson Davis territory? How about single payer health care?

Clearly, Rick Perry has many, many questions he needs to answer about his twisted view of the Constitution. There probably aren’t enough popovers in New Hampshire to allow him to dodge all of them.

Last week, ThinkProgress reported that Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) believes that Medicare and Social Security are unconstitutional. Turns out, he’s not he only one. At a town hall in Tulsa, Oklahoma, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) appeared to embrace Perry’s claim that providing for America’s seniors is unconstitutional:

QUESTION: With more and more cuts in Medicare and Medicaid on the horizon, I’m really worried about protecting our frail elderly in the Medicare and Medicaid facilities. So I would like to know how Congress proposes to balance the budget and still make sure our frail elderly in these facilities are protected and have trained care staff.

COBURN: That’s a great question. The first question I have for you is if you look in the Constitution, where is it the federal government’s role to do that? That’s number one. Number two is the way I was brought up that’s a family responsibility, not a government responsibility.

Watch it:

The answer to Coburn’s first question is Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. The Constitution gives Congress the power to “to lay and collect taxes” and to “provide for the…general welfare of the United States.” No plausible interpretation of the words “general welfare” does not include programs that ensure that all Americans can live their entire lives secure in the understanding that retirement will not force them into poverty and untreated sickness.

While Coburn’s first question reveals his need to actually read the Constitution before he pretends to know what’s in it, his second question betrays his utter disconnect from the reality ordinary American families face. The annual cost of nursing home care in Tulsa is $47,815.00. So Coburn apparently thinks that it is a family’s responsibility to either wipe out their savings or face crippling debt in order to ensure that their parents and grandparents are cared for.